ISHWARBHAI H PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. N.J Shah learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s Thakkar Associates for the respondents.

(2.) THE Letters Patent Appeal No. 494 of 2001 has been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.2.2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3153 of 1988 by which the learned Single Judge has modified the punishment order dated 26.6.87 dismissing the petitioner from service and confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10th February 1988 and it has been directed that one increment with cumulative effect has been stopped and the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with 25% backwages.

(3.) THE first charge was that the petitioner was absent without any leave application with effect from 9.10.1986 and 9.12.86. Moreover, on 15.12.86 he did not report for duty within time and came late and when explanation was sought he did not submit any reply. THE third charge against the respondent was that of misconduct and misbehaviour with superior officer. With regard to this charge departmental inquiry was held being Inquiry No. 1/85 and 2/85 and accordingly the punishment was awarded to the respondent. THErefore, from the charge sheet it appears that for taking the action two charges were found against the respondent one for remaining absent on two different dates and coming late to the office on one day and other charge was that he did not comply with the instructions given by the superiors. THE first and second charge was proved but the third charge was not disputed by the Inquiry Officer. THE disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which has been confirmed in Appeal. THE learned Single Judge has set aside the dismissal order. THE learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr Shah produced the original record showing the letter by which 9 types of work was allotted to the petitioner which was to be carried out by one clerk and the officer entrusted the work was not justified in asking the clerk to do the work which could be carried out within one week. THE entire work was to be carried within one week. It was further stated in the charge that the work assigned was to be carried out by the clerk and he was required to complete the entire work in one week.